I have writtenextensively about the dangers of the CRPD, the UN treaty touching the so-called rights of the disabled. The President was at the Disabled American Veterans and said these words:

And I know how disappointing it was last year when the Senate failed to approve the Disabilities Treaty despite the fact that we had a former senator and World War II veteran, Bob Dole, in the Senate chamber. But we’re going to keep fighting to ratify that Treaty, because the United States has always been a leader for the rights of the disabled. We believe that disabled Americans like you deserve the same opportunities to work and to study and to travel in other countries as any other American. It’s the right thing to do. We need to get it done. (Applause.)

The President is saying, “Pass the CRPD so we can meddle in other nations’ internal affairs to help US vets.” That is no reason to pass any treaty. But let me say, this treaty has clauses in it that affect parental rights. This treaty does in fact require that the government put the best interest of disabled children over parental rights. Here is the take of www.parentalrights.org on this treaty:

The CRPD allows the government to superimpose its own determination of the child’s best interest

Geraldine van Bueren, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the international rights of the child and helped to draft the UNCRC clearly explains the meaning and application of this best interests standard in her course material.

Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.2.Section 7 of the UNCRPD uses the exact same legal terms as those contained in the UNCRC.

Today under the IDEA parents get to decide what they think is best for their child—including the right to walk away from government services and provide private or home education. Under the UNCRPD, that right is supplanted with the rule announced by Professor van Bueren. Government officials have the authority to substitute their views for the views of parents as well as the views of the child as to what is best. If parents think that private schools are best for their child, the UNCRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty to override that judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program that the officials think is best for the child.

And many children have received assistance from educational officials and programs in physical and mental assistance. Whether it is Child Find, a 504 plan or an IEP, that would make that child “disabled” for the purposes of this treaty. So many parents would lose their rights to unelected bureaucrats and judges.

Don’t believe me? Look at this chilling remnant of Obamacare: Regulations that authorize grants to have social services investigate certain parents or children. Ben Swann’s website is reporting that “Forced Home Inspections” may be part of Obamacare. (Joshua Cook posted it.)

Now there are over the top untrue things on the right, too. So I looked at the regulations themselves. They do not on their face say forced home visits. But the criteria for home visits includes homes with disabled children (remember my definition of “disabled” to trigger government meddling under the CRPD means ANY kind of intervention to assist a child learn):

Priority for Serving High-Risk Populations and Programmatic Areas of Emphasis As directed in the legislation , successful applicants will give priority to providing services to the following populations: a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection (b)(1)(A). b) Low-income eligible families. c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. i) Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States.” (emphasis added)

So there you have it. This treaty is certainly a threat to our sovereignty as we are obliged to report to foreigners. But it also endangers the rights of fit parents to raise their children. Ask your Senator to vote NO on the CRPD.

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)